The 17-55 has less DOF at the same f-stop, in my experience. Make sure you are comparing well focused parts of the image.

Not sure if I'm misunderstanding this: are you saying that the 17-55 has less Depth of Field than another lens at the same focal length and same aperture (on the same camera)?I though that was not possible, unless I'm missing something.

The 17-55 has less DOF at the same f-stop, in my experience. Make sure you are comparing well focused parts of the image.

Not sure if I'm misunderstanding this: are you saying that the 17-55 has less Depth of Field than another lens at the same focal length and same aperture (on the same camera)?I though that was not possible, unless I'm missing something.

I have always been disappointed by my 17-55's sharpness, even with AF MA -- plus mine has the dust ingress flaw*. It performs like yours. I assume we have bad copies, because surely all those anecdotal rave reviews can't be wrong... (the more systematic tests could be more reliable).

I'm sure bad copies occasionally happen. I didn't know any better at the time and so I never changed mine. It might be worth a try, if you have that option.

The 17-55 has less DOF at the same f-stop, in my experience. Make sure you are comparing well focused parts of the image.

Not sure if I'm misunderstanding this: are you saying that the 17-55 has less Depth of Field than another lens at the same focal length and same aperture (on the same camera)?I though that was not possible, unless I'm missing something.

DOF based on aperture is just an approximation. There is a well known Zeiss document

I have always been disappointed by my 17-55's sharpness, even with AF MA -- plus mine has the dust ingress flaw*. It performs like yours. I assume we have bad copies, because surely all those anecdotal rave reviews can't be wrong... (the more systematic tests could be more reliable).

My 17-55 was excellent at close distances, like 2-3m but not spectacular near infinity.